Strategies for the green-conscious air traveler

I have a few flights planned for this summer, and I'm not looking forward to them. It's not just the long security lines, crammed seats, and lack of pillows on board.

It's my eco-conscience.

The fact is that flying is a significant and growing source of climate change. Globally, aviation contributes roughly 2-3 percent of all carbon emissions. 

High impact
That may not sound like a significant number -- cement manufacturing, after all, contributes at least 5 percent of all emissions.

But carbon from airplanes is emitted high in the atmosphere, which means it has a disproportionate effect on climate change. In fact, scientists attribute a "forcing factor" of two to two-and-a-half times to airplanes' base emissions. Thus, the contribution to climate change may be more like 6-8 percent. In industrialized nations like the UK, where affluence enables more air travel, estimates are as high as 12 percent. 

And it's predicted to climb. Airbus and Boeing project a doubling of aircraft in the fleet over the next few decades. Some scientists say that by 2050, aviation will be one of the largest contributors to global warming. 

Thus the guilt. Sites like www.flyingsthenewsmoking.com, www.planestupid.com, and the satirical www.spurt-aviation.com add to this feeling. 

What's in the numbers
Numerous airports, from Seattle to Manchester (UK) to Vancouver, have undertaken "carbon accounting" to understand the impact of flying. The results are pretty consistent. 

Take what Seattle's comprehensive 2006 greenhouse gas inventory found: When you fly, 90 percent of the total is generated by the plane; the airport itself generates about 2 percent; and getting to and from the airport contributes the rest (about 8 percent). 

It's tempting to go after that 90 percent by flying on more fuel-efficient planes, avoiding older jets like first-generation 737s and MD-80s and opting for a newer 777 or A320, or maybe even a Q400 turboprop. But as a passenger, in the near term, choosing what you fly is nearly impossible.

There is longer-term hope on tackling that 90 percent, and we at RMI are planning to work with the industry on increasing the fuel efficiency of planes with some of our ideas in Winning the Oil Endgame.

The "negaflight"
In the near-term, however, your best option for tackling that 90 percent is not to fly. As our Chief Scientist Amory Lovins puts it, "sometimes it's advantageous to transmit electrons instead of the heavy nucleii." 

To translate: Use your Macbook Air instead of US Air. Three months ago, I was able to keynote a conference from my living room on my video-equipped laptop.

This "virtual presentation" was not perfect, but the client was pleased, it beat the long flights, and I definitely saved carbon.

Sure, I miss the free mini-pretzels. But I also didn't absorb an excess-fuel surcharge-the commute to and from my laptop was pretty short. As technology gets better, virtual meetings will only become a more attractive option. 

Other options
Avoiding the trip, or taking a "negaflight," is often not practical. Your client needs to see you in person, or the family is having a reunion. You need to fly.

In which case, to minimize your impact, you have to go after that 8 percent: How you get to and from the airport. 

Fortunately, there is a lot you can do to green your trip to and from the airport, and several airports are working hard to help -- the subject of my next article.

Michael Brylawski is Vice President of the Mobility / Vehicle Efficiency Practice at Rocky Mountain Institute.